]W:#325]Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

[Lursa]

you're biased though.

My assessments are clear-headed and accurate. Your posts continue to support my assessments.

 

[Dayton3]

My assessments are clear-headed and accurate. Your posts continue to support my assessments.

You've accused me of being a "fascist" and when challenged to provide specific details to justify that you avoid answering.

That says it all.

 

[Lursa]

You've accused me of being a "fascist" and when challenged to provide specific details to justify that you avoid answering.

That says it all.

Never once. Please quote where or dont lie.

 

[Dayton3]

Never once. Please quote where or dont lie.

Post #289.

https://debatepolitics.com/threads/dayton-admits-to-not-liking-most-women.483270/page-12

Looks like you are the one who is lying.

 

[Mustachio]

Abortion is homicide by definition. My right to privacy does not excuse any homicide, nor should anyone else's. When the RvW decision laid out particulars on when abortion is legal and when it isn't, it created law. Creating laws is the role of the legislature, not SCOTUS.

The current supreme court 9-0 disagrees with all of the bolded
And your right to privacy is inferred by the wording in the constitution which is pretty meta-hilarious

So you made up an argument nobody else agrees with and then you said it's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Thank you for allowing me to live in your world

 

[Dayton3]

Well @Lursa, what about it?

The most obvious nazi on the board. What a dick.

Of course he doenst like women...because they dont like him.

Note to @Dayton3, women dont like stupid and they dont like Nazis. I know you can only control one of those things, but maybe...try?

How is that not calling me a "fascist"? Or a "Nazi"?

 

[NotreDame]

Yes, the right to abortion is neither explicitly stated / mentioned nor implicitly protected by any words or combination of words contained in ANY provision of the Constitution -- it is a double-edged sword. Which is what I've been arguing, in opposition to your A), unblinking focus on Alito's factual statement that abortion is not expressly mentioned, and B), your demand that the right to abortion must be implicitly PROTECTED by the 9thA, while ignoring (to the point of editing out) the Court explaining its doctrine of applying the 14thA to recognize any constitutional PROTECTION under the 14thA (even for enumerated rights, see McDonald v Chicago) . . .

My criticism was focused on what YOU didn't say, not what Alito said.

Which is vacuous. What I didn’t say does to change the plain English of what Alito did say, that you could not and did not correctly understand.

My argument WAS, IS, and WILL BE what Alito said, and I correctly understood what he said. Your obsession with what I didn’t say is obfuscation to hide your blundering of the plain English of what Alito said that I focused upon.

I was condemning YOU for dropping off what is the actual determinative law that demands Roe be overturned; the Court's explanation of why the right to abortion cannot be considered a liberty interest under the due process clause of the 14thA.

Fake condemnation as you fail to comprehend what I’m arguing. The I never opined what is or isn’t “determinative law that demands Roe be overturned.” There is not a single line in any post of mine addressing what is or isn’t the “determinative law” for overturning Roe.

Again, your focus upon the 14th in response to my argument was, is now, and will be irrelevant and misplaced as my argument explicitly/implicitly doesn’t focus upon the 14th.

If there’s any “condemnation” it has to be your continued reply with obsession with the 14th as a reply to my focus upon the 9th and specific phrasing and wording by Alito’s reasoning in relation to the 9th.

No, that's what it actually says

If we ignore plain English, sure. But the plain English of, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,”… (The COMMA indicates a break in the thought from the following thought.)

That wording by Alito Does not remotely come close to your phrase of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right”

What Alito said is there’s nothing in the Constitution explicitly mentioning abortion or impliedly protecting abortion, and that by logical implication means the 9th doesn’t.

Neither does the next phrase AFTER the comma of “including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mean your comment of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right.”

To the contrary, Alito referred to the 14th not because the Court “MUST look elsewhere” but because of the “defenders or Roe and Casey chiefly” relied upon the 14th

The plain English is not consistent with your view of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right.”

But go ahead, let’s read an argument by you as to how the plain English of “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment“

Means your remark of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right.”

Regardless, my reading of “there’s nothing in the Constitution explicitly mentioning abortion or impliedly protecting abortion, and that by logical implication means the 9th doesn’t either” IS correct, and IS what I’ve said, say now, and will continue to say. That’s is and has been a part of my argument.

 

[NotreDame]

.



, , and B), your demand that the right to abortion must be implicitly PROTECTED by the 9thA, while ignoring (to the point of editing out) the Court explaining its doctrine of applying the 14thA to recognize any constitutional PROTECTION under the 14thA (even for enumerated rights, see McDonald v Chicago) . . .

Yes, the right to abortion is neither explicitly stated / mentioned nor implicitly protected by any words or combination of words contained in ANY provision of the Constitution -- it is a double-edged sword. Which is what I've been arguing

You have? Which post number?

I ask because that has been my reading of Alito’s wording since my relevant involvement in this thread.

I’ve criticized this phrase exactly and precisely because the 9th ostensibly undercuts the statement and reasoning in the statement.

You’ve responded to this aspect of my argument by obsessing over the 14th.

in opposition to your A), unblinking focus on Alito's factual statement that abortion is not expressly mentioned

Quite impossible unless, once again, you fail to understand my argument.

That Alito reasons and claims there’s no express mention of abortion in the Constitution WAS AND IS A PREMISE of my criticism based in the 9th.

The “unblinking focus” is by you upon a Strawman.

My goodness man, my criticism is exprsssly stated and reliant upon that remark by Alito as shown in my prior posts.

B), your demand that the right to abortion must be implicitly PROTECTED by the 9thA

Another false argument attributed to me.

I’ve NEVER made or implied what you say I have above.

Now, as any good math teacher would say, show your work, point to the post and language where I stated a “demand” for “abortion” as a right in the 9th.

Address MY argument.

 

[NotreDame]

The comma is there so Alito can connect and specifically and explicitly exclude, what the current defenders of Roe now wish to claim, that the 14thA's due process clause is where constitutional protection can be found . . .



You have no shame do you?



Easiest way to avoid people calling you a liar and disingenuous is to not be a disingenuous liar.





.

Yes, I know what that means, and I know it refutes what you have been arguing which leaves me puzzled why you are trying to embrace it now (other than you are a disingenuous liar) . . .

No, it doesn’t refute anything I’ve said. It refuted your Strawman arguments.

The phrase “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,”

Says and means what I’ve said before, that this includes the 9th amendment as not impliedly or expressly protecting abortion.

Correct, my comments were focused on you cutting out / deleting "the bolded at the end", which is the Court citing its 14thA due process doctrine which forces the conclusion that Roe and Casey must be overturned.

Which means nothing in relation to my argument since my argument isn’t and never has been in regards to the 14th. I’ve NEVER contested or questioned this part of the opinion.

Hence, you follow your modus operandi of reasoning with irrelevance.

Problem is, the original Roe decision never defended abortion using or citing the Court's due process doctrine (refer to Renquist's dissent I quoted earlier) which again, harkens back to the 1930's and is not something Alito just threw together in 2022 for Dobbs, which is the crap you previously argued.

The “crap” is your claim I argued that “crap.” Post number and quotes where I did so.

And Roe DID invoke the Due Process Clause, and explicitly stated it. “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is…”

Easiest way to avoid people calling you a liar and disingenuous is to not be a disingenuous liar.

Or report your posts for doing so.

Especially when the claim of liar and disingenuous is based upon your strawmen arguments and not my actual arguments and not understanding plain English of what Alito said.

My statement is true and an honest assessment of your character and integrity.

No, it is indicative of someone who cannot argue the merits, so they resort to name calling and Strawman arguments.

 

[NotreDame]

It is a fact that you yourself admit that while my argument HAS been focused on the 14thA, your argument has never in any context included the 14thA, thus you consider my argument focused on what you call, the "bolded part", is irrelevant.

You said (and I replied to):

View attachment 67405922​

Now, being the disingenuous liar you are, you are embracing the Court's 14thA statements and doctrine . . . It's absurd and hilarious.

It is a fact that you have myopically focused on Alito saying that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and represented that as being the "logic" of Alito's Dobbs opinion.

Nope. I never said “the logic of Alito’s Dobb’s opinion” where this phrase means it is the foundation of the opinion.

you are embracing the Court's 14thA statements and doctrine . . . It's absurd and hilarious.

Factually impossible as I never rejected the 14th statements.

It is a fact that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

Never said otherwise. This is a premise of my argument.

It is a fact that that fact, that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, is of little to no consequence or importance to the holding of Dobbs.

Never said otherwise and my comments that I was not and have not focused upon the Holding in my argument.

It is a fact that you have myopically focused on Alito saying that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and represented that as being the "logic" of Alito's Dobbs opinion.

Again, false. That’s your Strawman.

 

[NotreDame]

The 14th Amendment is not the Constitution?



But the 9th Amendment is??



An easy statement to make for a disingenuous liar who hasn't been considering the 14thA in any context in any of your arguments in this thread before these last two posts . . .



Yes what you "quoted" was from the syllabus, my criticism was you prefaced that "quotation" as being "His [Alito's] complete statement was, . . . "

That is a disingenuous lie because the syllabus is not the opinion, it is not written by any Justice, it is not citable and quotable as being the holding or the decision.



Do you know what the word “any” means? Do you?

The 14th Amendment is not the Constitution?

So, you do not understand the following phrase? The phrase the 14th amendment is not the Constitution.

Really?

That is a disingenuous lie

No it is not disingenuous or a lie because it is a accurate and correct statement of his opinion. Disingenuous and lying would be presenting a statement that is not correct or accurate, treating intentionally as if it were.

The people who know that know that you do not quote any part of any syllabus as being any part of the opinion, or any part of the decision, or any part of the holding, and especially not as being any words spoken by any Justice of the Court.

Oh, because you say so? Because you can speak speculatively for “people”? Nonsense.

Especially since, guess what, part of the quote from the syllabus IS exactly from the opinion itself.

This is you having nothing left but attacking me personally.

In post after post you have called me a liar.

 

[NotreDame]

So quote from the opinion.



But only if a right claimed to be a derivative of privacy can be shown to meet the Court's doctrine of recognition and protection.
You know, what you have decided should be edited out and deleted . . .


Is it your position that the 9thA is rigidly interpreted to only contemplate unenumerated rights?



Does the fact that the Court also uses that narrow doctrine -- asking whether a claimed right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to our Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty" -- to decide the incorporation of enumerated rights, (see McDonald v Chicago), inform your opinion at all?


What did you claim Alito's "logic" was, to "conclude" that no federally recognized right to abortion exists (which was what Dobbs rested on)?

Oh yeah, you said . . . "my argument focused upon the Alito’s logic the “Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion” upon which Alito relied upon to conclude no such right exists."

To decide if a right is owed federal recognition and protection, "the Court has long asked whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to our Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.”

This begs the question whether this IS the standard for the 9th amendment.

Your opinion of this wide umbrella of "protection" demanded by the 9th Amendment is contradictory to the longstanding and well established narrow doctrine the Court uses to federally recognize and protect ALL rights under the 14thA.

Not really…there’s no logical conflict between those phrases such that both cannot be true. For such a contradiction to exist as you claim requires the assumption that doctrine for the 14th IS the same for the 9th and would also be the correct doctrine for the 9th. That hasn’t been determined.

How is it possible that some rights (e.g., the RKBA) that are enumerated were denied and disparaged by states for so long, if the 9thA has this wide "protection" aspect you claim (forcing federal powers to alter / repel state actions)?

Because the 9th originally applied only to the federal government.

Of course you said Alito relied on the fact the Constitution makes no reference to abortion to decide Dobbs, and only a disingenuous liar would claim the opposite now.

“Of course” I didn’t and you cannot and will not be able to point to any language in any post where I did say the above.

Again, your personal attack of calling me a liar is based on something I never wrote or claimed.

What did you claim Alito's "logic" was, to "conclude" that no federally recognized right to abortion exists (which was what Dobbs rested on)?

No, that is not what I said. I didn’t says “which is what Dobbs rested on.”

Reread what I did say. “[M]y argument focused upon the Alito’s logic the “Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion” upon which Alito relied upon to conclude no such right exists."

The above comment of mine IS not the same as, and doesn’t say, your repeated Strawmen “Of course you said Alito relied on the fact the Constitution makes no reference to abortion to decide Dobbs,”

Again, I HAVE never said Alito relied upon that “to decide Dobbs.” Ever.

That is you proverbially putting words in my mouth, and making an different statement and point of view from that of my own.

Again, your character assault of me as a liar and disingenuous is and continues to be based upon your misreading of what I said and have argued.

Stop the personal insults, character assault, and just address the argument.

There was a warning previously given in this thread to abstain from the personal attacks.

 

[beefheart]

Well @Lursa, what about it?


Of course he doenst like women...because they dont like him.

Note to @Dayton3, women dont like stupid and they dont like Nazis. I know you can only control one of those things, but maybe...try?

How is that not calling me a "fascist"? Or a "Nazi"?

Oh Dayton...

 

[mac]

The current supreme court 9-0 disagrees with all of the bolded /quote

No, it doesn't.

 

[Mustachio]

No, it doesn't.

Proof:
freedom of movement: inferred right. Federal
Roe: overturned due to misapplication of constitutional interpretation entirely separate from enumerated rights. They depend of jurisprudence to impact future rulings, making everything you're saying a huge argument against their entire philosophy
They firmly believe creating laws that supposedly can be done rom their "correct" reading of the constitutional is not only acceptable, it is proper.

That's absolutely spot on, I don't know what you have in your brain but its wrong

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Fake condemnation as you fail to comprehend what I’m arguing. The I never opined what is or isn’t “determinative law that demands Roe be overturned.” There is not a single line in any post of mine addressing what is or isn’t the “determinative law” for overturning Roe.

Correct, I didn't say you said it, I was making the statement that you ignored what the Court was saying was determinative . . . What demanded Roe be overturned -- the fact that Roe never examined or demonstrated abortion to be a liberty interest “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

That wording by Alito Does not remotely come close to your phrase of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right”

What Alito said is there’s nothing in the Constitution explicitly mentioning abortion or impliedly protecting abortion, and that by logical implication means the 9th doesn’t.

Absolutely correct, abortion is not expressly mentioned, and no provision of the Constitution can be read to implicitly protect abortion (including the 9th and 14th Amendments). Since the US Constitution offers no guidance, the Court must be presented with (or look for themselves) evidence of abortion having been recognized as a liberty interest elsewhere, outside the US Constitution.

Neither does the next phrase AFTER the comma of “including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Mean your comment of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right.”

The Court has employed an outside mechanism since the 1930's. The Court looked for historical examples of (on some level) of abortion's recognition by governments, (as opposed to its routine prohibition), a test the Court characterizes as, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”.

The Court also looks to the record for evidence that abortion was claimed as a liberty interest by the citizens who demanded abortion to be immune from governmental impact, what the Court calls, “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

Abortion was never held to these tests in Roe and when finally applied in Dobbs, abortion failed these tests . . .

 

[Willie Orwontee]

To the contrary, Alito referred to the 14th not because the Court “MUST look elsewhere” but because of the “defenders or Roe and Casey chiefly” relied upon the 14th

The only way to find a federal protection is to look elsewhere . . .

The Court is only noting that the CURRENT defenders of Roe (in the briefings and oral arguments in Dobbs) were trying to retroactively use the Court's established 14thA's doctrine to save Roe. but the original decision never looked at the elsewhere, never employed those outside the US Constitution, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” criteria (as Renquist's dissent noted).

The plain English is not consistent with your view of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right.”

Yeah, it does . . .

But go ahead, let’s read an argument by you as to how the plain English of “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment“

Means your remark of “only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right.”

And again, you delete the pertinent part, the part that actually allows the federal government to recognize a right as federally protected, when the Constitution makes no reference to such a right, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.

The Court must look elsewhere, outside the Constitution for evidence that such a right exists and that it demands federal protection.

To actually federally recognize that right and to bring federal powers to bear to protect that right, the claimed right must be, “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”

.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

So, you do not understand the following phrase? The phrase the 14th amendment is not the Constitution.

Really?

I've never heard anyone argue that a duly ratified Amendment to the Constitution "is not the Constitution".

Doesn't Article V expressly preclude one thinking the 14th Amendment "is not the Constitution"?

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; "​

Oh, because you say so? Because you can speak speculatively for “people”? Nonsense.

Especially since, guess what, part of the quote from the syllabus IS exactly from the opinion itself.

Again, the syllabus is not the opinion, and a syllabus should not be referred to as the opinion and especially, never "quoted" or represented as a quote of any Justice.

A syllabus (if provided) is written by the Reporter of Decisions and provided as a synopsis of the decision for the convenience of the reader.

Whenever a syllabus is provided, a boilerplate explanatory note explains what I am saying; here's a screenshot I took of Dobbs:

​

 

[Willie Orwontee]

This begs the question whether this IS the standard for the 9th amendment.

There is no standard for the 9thA because the 9thA is not a mechanism to protect rights.

Not really…there’s no logical conflict between those phrases such that both cannot be true. For such a contradiction to exist as you claim requires the assumption that doctrine for the 14th IS the same for the 9th and would also be the correct doctrine for the 9th. That hasn’t been determined.

If the 9thA had this blanket PROTECTION you read into it, why is all the contrived bullshit surrounding the 14thA's due process clause tolerated?

All we need to do is point to the 9thA and every unenumerated right is protected as if it was enumerated, isn't that the position you started with in this thread?

"The plain text of the 9th acknowledged/acknowledges rights in existence which do not appear in the Constitution are yet are as protected as enumerated rights in the Constitution.​

​

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”​

​

The 9th amendment protects every right not mentioned in the Constitution."​

Because the 9th originally applied only to the federal government.

Is it really your belief the 9thA has been incorporated?

Perhaps that explains why you have this incorrect idea that the 9thA is somehow this great "protector" of rights, enforceable against state actions . . .

.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes we know that or the hundredth time. We want you to support your claim, justifying why there should be change to recognize rights for the unborn. So far, just a scientific definition for legal status and rights fails. Period. You have not explained WHY there should be any CHANGE to current law.



No...it discusses who has rights recognized in the US, period. You dont understand it. It's clear that only the BORN or naturalized citizens are entitled to due process, etc. You are wrong.

No matter what CHANGES you want, that does not change the actual meaning of the 14th A and it has continually been interpreted to exclude the unborn. The Amendment would need to be repealed. What would justify that? You need an explanation founded in law.



Again, you have not explained why or how to CHANGE current law. You know the 5th does not apply to the unborn, since they are not persons or citizens. What is the justification to change that?

Would you care to justify the way in which this particular legal code defines the unborn as "human beings?"

(C)
If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

I mean, I have an idea as to how you will attempt to circumvent it already, but I want to see if you at least admit that the code as stated contradicts your view that the unborn cannot be "persons or citizens." I believe an earlier post of yours claimed that damage to the unborn was comparable to damage to pets or somesuch. But if this code states that the umborn are human beings, then they are not comparable to pets, whether or not you grant the proposition that all human beings have rights-- which you won't.

 

[Lursa]

Would you care to justify the way in which this particular legal code defines the unborn as "human beings?"

They're saying that they'll use the same, existing penal code and punishment that they would use for human beings. I saw nowhere that they called the unborn a human being. As a matter of fact, they went out of their way to ALWAYS qualify 'child' with 'unborn.' Every time.

And they also had an entire paragraph explaining that and variations on it...all qualified with 'unborn.'

Can you quote where they called the unborn a human being? I mean, they were very careful to clarify exactly what they were referring to in the very last para. Or recognized any rights for it?

I mean, I have an idea as to how you will attempt to circumvent it already, but I want to see if you at least admit that the code as stated contradicts your view that the unborn cannot be "persons or citizens." I believe an earlier post of yours claimed that damage to the unborn was comparable to damage to pets or somesuch. But if this code states that the umborn are human beings, then they are not comparable to pets, whether or not you grant the proposition that all human beings have rights-- which you won't.

No contradiction. And definitely no right to life is recognized, since it explicitly says the pregnant woman can still kill it.

 

[Ouroboros]

They're saying that they'll use the same, existing penal code and punishment that they would use for human beings. I saw nowhere that they called the unborn a human being. As a matter of fact, they went out of their way to ALWAYS qualify 'child' with 'unborn.' Every time.

And they also had an entire paragraph explaining that and variations on it...all qualified with 'unborn.'

Can you quote where they called the unborn a human being? I mean, they were very careful to clarify exactly what they were referring to in the very last para. Or recognized any rights for it?



No contradiction. And definitely no right to life is recognized, since it explicitly says the pregnant woman can still kill it.

Yeah, just what I expected. You decided to read this straightforward statement that defines the crime-- that the slayer of the unborn will be punished for "intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being"-- as mere metaphor. I knew that you would not accept anything less than the outright statement "an unborn child is a human being," and if you did encounter it, you probably would still find some way around it. Still, leyving the charge of human murder for the slaying of an unborn under the circumstances described is still rather different from the consequences for killing an animal, though, isn't it? Or do you renounce that earlier comparison?

It amuses me, though, that as a strategy to validate your beliefs, you attempt to "prove" that all relevant legal texts support your views. It would be more realistic to say that your fancied unanimity is a chimera at best, given that different codes are formulated by different people who view the Law differently, just as we have seen demonstrated time and again on the Supreme Court. Why you don't just confine yourself to supporting those interpretations with which you agree, I neither know nor care. You can have the last word, though. I have a pretty good idea of how your rhetoric will go and there's no point in watching a foregone conclusion.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah, just what I expected. You decided to read this straightforward statement that defines the crime-- that the slayer of the unborn will be punished for "intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being"-- as mere metaphor.

it's not a metaphor, it's the specific legal language of the law.

knew that you would not accept anything less than the outright statement "an unborn child is a human being,"

Why would I? Legal documentation is very specific. LOL it deliberately was that specific in the section at the end. And said the opposite, clearly.

and if you did encounter it, you probably would still find some way around it. Still, leyving the charge of human murder for the slaying of an unborn under the circumstances described is still rather different from the consequences for killing an animal, though, isn't it? Or do you renounce that earlier comparison?

Yes, I do stick to facts and truth and specifics. It is different, the specific laws are different. Does that seem odd to you? If you understood the word 'comparison', it does not mean 'same' or 'equal.' Maybe you should just stick to words that you do know the meaning of?

It amuses me, though, that as a strategy to validate your beliefs, you attempt to "prove" that all relevant legal texts support your views.

Where did I attempt that? I provided some sources (legal texts, links) that say the unborn federally have no rights...and asked others to find any that disputed them. You tried...and failed.

It would be more realistic to say that your fancied unanimity is a chimera at best, given that different codes are formulated by different people who view the Law differently, just as we have seen demonstrated time and again on the Supreme Court. Why you don't just confine yourself to supporting those interpretations with which you agree, I neither know nor care. You can have the last word, though. I have a pretty good idea of how your rhetoric will go and there's no point in watching a foregone conclusion.

LMAO....aaaannnndddd /scene.
You descend into a pretentious, meaningless attempt at a personal attack...because you missed the mark...and retreat. See ya

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You obviously aren't thinking about what you post.

If it isn't in the US Constitution, then it cannot be a constitutional right by definition. It might be an individual right or an inherent right, but if it is not contained within the US Constitution then it cannot be a "constitutional right."

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a product of the late-18th century actually, not the 17th.

The U.S. Constitution largely doesn't grant rights, other than the right to vote. What it does is restrict the power of government. For example, the government cannot infringe on your right's to own firearms. The government cannot restrict your speech. The government cannot treat you unequally under the law.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are other areas of your life that that government cannot interfere in, but these are too numerous to list in a constitution. What we have are largely not constitutional rights, but rather constitutional protections by limiting the power of government. The right to abortion wasn't a right, but rather a limit on the power of government to interfere in medical decisions about pregnancies prior to fetal viability. This stemmed from limits on the power of government to interfere in our private lives.

This is why Justice Thomas was the only consistent conservative justice in his opinion. You can't just pluck out abortion and leave all other restrictions on the governments power in our private lives. To be consistent, one has to argue that the government has virtually no restrictions when it comes to interfering in private lives, thus everything based on restrictions against the government interfering in our private lives would need to be looked again: Contraception, Sodomy laws and so on.

This is the problem with knee-jerk cultural conservatism. If you believe we have a right to privacy in that the government should be limited in it's ability to interfere in our private lives, then you can't let the government outlaw abortion before viability. If you don't believe we a have a right to privacy, then you open the door to the government being able to intrude into our private lives in all sorts of areas.

 

[Glitch]

The U.S. Constitution largely doesn't grant rights, other than the right to vote. What it does is restrict the power of government. For example, the government cannot infringe on your right's to own firearms. The government cannot restrict your speech. The government cannot treat you unequally under the law.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are other areas of your life that that government cannot interfere in, but these are too numerous to list in a constitution. What we have are largely not constitutional rights, but rather constitutional protections by limiting the power of government. The right to abortion wasn't a right, but rather a limit on the power of government to interfere in medical decisions about pregnancies prior to fetal viability. This stemmed from limits on the power of government to interfere in our private lives.

This is why Justice Thomas was the only consistent conservative justice in his opinion. You can't just pluck out abortion and leave all other restrictions on the governments power in our private lives. To be consistent, one has to argue that the government has virtually no restrictions when it comes to interfering in private lives, thus everything based on restrictions against the government interfering in our private lives would need to be looked again: Contraception, Sodomy laws and so on.

This is the problem with knee-jerk cultural conservatism. If you believe we have a right to privacy in that the government should be limited in it's ability to interfere in our private lives, then you can't let the government outlaw abortion before viability. If you don't believe we a have a right to privacy, then you open the door to the government being able to intrude into our private lives in all sorts of areas.

There was never any specificity with regard to the number of inherent rights not contained within the US Constitution. It merely acknowledges that more inherent rights, besides those already listed, exist.

Furthermore, the federal government is constrained to only those powers specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. Which means that no branch of the federal government may acknowledge any additional rights, besides those already specified by the US Constitution. Only the States have the exclusive constitutional authority to acknowledge individual rights not specified by the US Constitution.

Justice Thomas' chief objection was to the 1937 contrivance by the Supreme Court of "substantive" due process. I happen to agree with Justice Thomas, there is only procedural due process. However, that does not negate the decisions made by the Supreme Court using substantive due process. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), for example, was decided both on substantive due process and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same thing is true for Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) (same-sex marriage). The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment still makes those decisions valid, despite using the bogus "substantive" due process nonsense.

We do have a right to privacy, with limits. As specified under the Fourth Amendment, we have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The limitation comes in with regard to what is considered "unreasonable" and the exception of "probable cause" which overrides our right to privacy.

Anything more than that and it must come from the States. The federal government is specifically prohibited from doing more than what the US Constitution allows, which includes acknowledging rights not contained within the US Constitution.